Barth v. Muniz et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - Amended Complaint due by 1/28/2019. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SHAWN DAMON BARTH,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 18-cv-01242-WHO (PR)

v.
WILLIAM MUNIZ, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Shawn Damon Barth has failed to file an amended complaint that complies

18

with my instructions. His first complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it

19

raised “many unrelated, and factually insufficient, claims against his jailors in a confusing

20

and verbose 55 page complaint, to which he . . . attached 316 pages of exhibits.” (Order

21

Dismissing the Complaint With Leave to Amend, Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) I directed him to file an

22

amended complaint of no more than 10 pages; narrow his allegations to claims related by

23

fact and law; and to plead specific facts in support of his claims. (Id. at 2-3.)

24

Despite having more than 60 days to complete this task, Barth’s amended complaint

25

remains a jumble of mostly unrelated claims. The new complaint is 17 pages long and

26

contains unrelated claims, many of which lack any specific factual support. He claims, for

27

instance, that his jailors have inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on him by

28

transferring him to many prisons over a short time, subjecting him to abuse at the hands of

1

inmates and staff; denied him his First Amendment right to access the courts; denied his

2

due process right to safety and health; denied him proper medical care, protection from

3

other inmates, and proper food, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment; denied him

4

privileges granted to other inmates; and more.

5

Federal pleading rules require that claims be based on “the same transaction,

6

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and pose a “question of law or fact

7

common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Barth’s complaint fails to comply

8

with this rule, and he has failed to follow my directions in the Order dismissing his first

9

complaint. I again order him file an amended complaint on or before January 28, 2019 if
he wishes to proceed in this matter. He should pick one closely related set of claims—

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

related both by the legal claims asserted and the facts involved, as required by Federal

12

Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). He must limit the amended complaint to no more than

13

10 pages and plead specific facts in support of his claims.

14

The first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended

15

complaint that complies with the Court’s directions. The amended complaint must include

16

the caption and civil case number used in this order (18-01242 WHO (PR)) and the words

17

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint

18

completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended

19

complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue.

20

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate

21

material from the prior complaint by reference. Because this new deadline provides Barth

22

with a substantial amount of time, it is unlikely that any extensions of time will be granted.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2018
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2